Meta

Category: Second Amendment

Here is about about a senior citizen lady who was armed and took care of an armed intruder with her gun. This lady teaches all of us the value of awareness, preparedness, and having a defensive mindset.

On Tuesday afternoon, the FBI released the October report from the National Instant Background Check System (NICS). Over 2.3 million background checks were performed during the last month, an increase from 1.9 million in September.

What’s most interesting is the dramatic rise in overall background checks within the last decade. Only 1.1 million background checks were performed during October 2008, and that rose slightly to just 1.6 million background checks in October of 2012.

Is this increase just a general trend in gun ownership, or is this a result of Second Amendment lovers recovering from an Obama presidency and preparing for Hillary Clinton?

Here are some background check numbers from the October report broken down by states of interest:

California – 180,968

Florida – 111,657

Illinois – 169,348

Pennsylvania – 103,05

Texas – 144,467

And the big winner? Kentucky performed 378,973 background checks last month!

Every state had an increase in background checks, except Louisiana. The Bayou State had a 1 percent drop since September.

Has it occurred to you that virtually no college in America teaches a course in individual freedom?

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.comJon Rappoport
September 13, 2016

Fingers pointed like a gun. A pop tart chewed into the shape of a gun. A toy gun. A screen shot of a gun.

For several years now, all over America, schools have been exercising what they call zero tolerance policy to suspend young children packing “suggestions of guns.”

Behind this practice is the idea that populations can be conditioned against owning real guns. Start early, indoctrinate the kids, and society will change.

In turn, such thinking rests on the premise that human beings are Pavlovian dogs. Programmed biological machines. If the program currently running is faulty, and fails to obey the mandate of “greatest good for the greatest number,” change the program.

As this Pavlovian approach expands and spreads, people begin to believe that a model of radical reconstruction is viable and good.

For instance, how many people would now respond favorably to the idea that “everyone can be programmed to forget guns even exist”?

Too far-out? Try this:

How many people would agree to a program that “guaranteed” racial prejudice would be wiped from human memory?

How many people would happily respond to the notion that environmental destruction, as an impulse, could be removed from the brain?

How many of these people would even notice that such programs eliminate freedom and choice? And if they did notice, how many would care?

The idea that you can obliterate “bad parts” of the brain and preserve the good parts is now embedded in standard science. It is childish, absurd, and dangerous to the extreme.

Brain researchers are, on the whole, disinterested in law. They aim to create a new species for whom no laws will be needed. People will do the right thing, because their upgraded brains tell them to.

Make no mistake about it, the technocrats/social engineers have a plan. They intend to program brains to fit their values-agenda. Whatever opposes that agenda is called a “mental disorder,” which needs to be corrected and erased.

Selling their work as social progress, these self-appointed elites will attempt to shape brain activity so it fulfills a goal of “cooperative impulse.” That means people would never think of their own desires, but instead would “serve the greater need of all.” Automatically.

No contemplation or independent thought necessary. Or required. Or possible.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Criminals don’t follow the law, and they especially do not follow gun control laws.

Source: AmericanPatriotDaily.com
August 4, 2016

The city of Chicago has some of the toughest and strictest gun control laws on the books out of all the major cities in the entire country.

But every day the newspapers and TV stations of Chicago fill the airwaves with devastating reports showing innocent Americans being murdered by criminals carrying guns.

The city is a shining example of how gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining and using guns to commit robbery and murder.

Instead of allowing law abiding Americans the chance to easily acquire a firearm for self-defense, politicians and public officials in Chicago call for harsher anti-gun measures almost daily.

The anti-gun crowd refuses to accept reality and the fact that criminals don’t obey gun control laws. They would rather disarm law abiding citizens who accept and obey the law.

A recent study by the University of Chicago proved this point after conducting a study to figure out how criminals in Chicago were acquiring their firearms.

Not surprisingly, administers of the study quickly learned these criminals do not acquire their guns from licensed dealers, private sellers, or even the Internet.

The study looked at inmates in Chicago’s Cook County Jail who face gun charges or who have a history of firearm related convictions.

They learned zero criminals have used gun shows or the Internet to purchase their weapons.

The reason why? The method is too easily traceable by law enforcement.

Instead, the preferred method for criminals was to purchase firearms available on the streets, where they are harder for law enforcement to track.

Harold Pollack, University of Chicago’s Crime Lab co-director, also said criminals, “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

Basically, the University of Chicago admits that the city is so dangerous, criminals would rather risk going to jail than not being able to effectively defend themselves.

The study also showed:

“The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

Gun rights groups have long claimed universal background checks are nothing more than a step towards a federal registry of all gun owners – which gun rights groups also argue would consequentially lead to outright confiscation of all firearms in America.

So while the anti-gun crowd pushes a purely fictional narrative that background checks stop bad guys from getting guns, the actual statistics and facts say their argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: “I’m not here to take away your guns” … Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.” She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox

During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.

She knows just how to do it.

First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.

Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.

But that is just the beginning.

Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.

In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.

George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:

“But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.

But there are many questions about these mass shootings.

David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this HERE:

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”

Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.

Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.

Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.

In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation. But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.

Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:

Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.

But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.

“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision. Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”

Only one more appointee is needed.

Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.